Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: local policy)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
In-Reply-To: <4680A1D2.5030203@apache.org>
References: <C6CD5819-3121-4C45-A49B-0194D19A9205@hogstrom.org>
 <9675754F-C5C2-4457-8EC8-E29B94B47887@optusnet.com.au>
 <4680A1D2.5030203@apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <486ABE34-6B0E-4C1B-8D9A-FC51313CC169@optusnet.com.au>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Gianny Damour <gianny.damour@optusnet.com.au>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] 2.0 Release Criteria
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:47:54 +1000
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org

Hello Donald,

Indeed, this is only for the Jetty assembly, and even for the jee5  
one as WADI is not enabled for the minimal one.

WADI does not depend on CXF. The problem is that the admin console  
uses Spring 2.0, which discovers NamespaceHandler implementations  
from specific resource files. A cxf JAR declares  
org.apache.cxf.clustering.spring.NamespaceHandler as a  
NamespaceHandler and this declaration is wrong. I believe this a  
problem with any Web-application using Spring 2.0. I will do a full  
build with a clean repo and see if it comes from me using an old  
version of a cxf JAR.

Thanks,
Gianny

On 26/06/2007, at 3:19 PM, Donald Woods wrote:

> I assume this will only be for the Jetty assembly, given WADI is  
> not used for the Tomcat assembly?
>
> Also, you mention a CXF depend, but can your WADI changes be used  
> if the user chooses Axis2 instead of CXF for the Jetty assembly?
>
>
> -Donald
>
> Gianny Damour wrote:
>> On 22/06/2007, at 2:34 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>>> We've gone through the CTS grind and came out victorious http:// 
>>> java.sun.com/javaee/overview/compatibility.jsp
>>>
>>> OpenEJB has moved to TopLevel and CXF has certified and Axis 2 is  
>>> working that way too.
>>>
>>> All in all its been an excellent six months.
>>>
>>> So, what are we going to do for 2.0 and getting it out the door?
>>>
>>> Here are my thoughts and we can use this thread to gather  
>>> everyone else's and come to a consensus.
>>>
>>> 2.0 Ship Criteria
>>> Date:  mid to end of July (a target only...depends on content)
>>>
>>> Certified Assemblies
>>> Tomcat, Axis 2 and OpenJPA
>>> Jetty, CXF and OpenJPA
>>>
>>> Other assemblies would be the minimal assemblies but cert doesn't  
>>> apply to them.
>>>
>>> Work on fit and finish stuff (cleaning up error messages,  
>>> improving diagnostics, reducing footprint).
>>>
>>> Personally, I'd like to see the full G have a footprint of about  
>>> 40MB (that's a little over 5MB larger than 1.1.1) and Minimal be  
>>> around 20MB.  Need to do some research on this (volunteers?)
>>>
>>> I'm not sure how the WADI clustering presents itself across the  
>>> two different assemblies (Gianny, comments?)
>> Sorry for this late reply. I would like to enable the WADI admin  
>> console for 2.0. I have some local changes that I will commit  
>> after having sorted out a problem with a cxf JAR. In a few words,  
>> I cannot start the admin console within Geronimo due to an  
>> IllegalArgumentException: "Class   
>> [org.apache.cxf.clustering.spring.NamespaceHandler] does not  
>> implement the NamespaceHandler interface". The console works fine  
>> in standalone Jetty, which is the out-of-the-box servlet container  
>> of grails (Groovy on Rails, which is the framework of the admin  
>> console).
>> Unfortunately, I will not be able to complete field level and  
>> method level state replication. However, nothing will have to be  
>> done within Geronimo except adding the aspectj javaagent to  
>> benefit from load-time-weaving of aspects used to track POJO  
>> instantiation and modification. On this point, if people are  
>> interested to give me a hand, then please feel free to ask and I  
>> will check in the new wadi-aop module.
>> Thanks,
>> Gianny
>>>
>>> Post 2.0 Items
>>>
>>> What to do about OSGi?  Seems like there has been discussion but  
>>> no real movement in this area.
>>> Flexible Server (there has been some discussion on the list about  
>>> allowing users without a PhD in G to create their own custom  
>>> assemblies.
>>> Would be neat to Create a minimal assemblie that included  
>>> ServiceMix for a lightweight ESB endpoint
>>> Better monitoring and diagnosis
>>>
>>>
>>> Thoughts?